Too Much To Stomach

May 17, 1990

Talk about obscene art: A painting by Vincent van Gogh has been sold at auction for $82.5 million.

It's not the painting - "Portrait of Dr. Gachet" - that offends. It's the price.

If the buyer, an unidentified company, was looking for a good investment, why didn't it put its money into something that would create jobs? If it is a supporter of the arts, why not use the money for scholarships or to back a good school?

There has been an explosion in the price paid for art. In the past three years, more than 10 works have sold for at least $26 million each.

The bottom may fall out of this market, which would be a blessing. Then maybe people and groups with so much money to burn would spend it on more socially beneficial endeavors.

This argument is difficult to make without being arbitrary. It makes little or no sense to suggest that art should not be sold.

And when buyers compete for the most popular pieces, they drive prices up. That's the open market at work.

But can't there be any self-restraint? Was that a bunch of baseball team owners bidding on the van Gogh? Is there no sense of embarrassment at paying so much for a piece of art that now, because of its high value, will be virtually impossible to display even if the new owner is inclined to do so?

Is the purchase of the van Gogh an example of conspicuous consumption, or the art world's equivalent of a junk bond? Who profits from such exorbitant prices? The auctioneer. The seller and possibly the buyer. "Possibly," because if the painting is regarded as an investment, it could turn sour.

Again, it is hard to draw the line. But at some point, such huge expenditures on art become offensive. The line was probably crossed long before the van Gogh purchase.

There can be no denying, however, that $82 million can be put to far better use than buying a single painting, even one by van Gogh.